User talk:Paisleypeach/Archive 3

Talk

For past talk discussions, please refer to my archives. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thunder of the East Marching Band Logo

To Ejgreen77: Hi, How's it going? I noticed that you updated the Thunder of the East Marching Band article to include a logo in the info box. I was wondering if that is the only logo that the band has? If it is, it is sooo UB to only promote a perspective of the band that is sexist. The logo excludes women. Are there any logos out there that show male and female marchers? It is not an all-male band. This is just another reflection of how UB's leaders promote UB as an institution that is primarily "for" men. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Its the only logo that I'm currently aware of. I don't think it promotes men over women any more then I think it discriminates against drummers by only showing a horn player, but that's JMHO. BTW, I removed the logo from the user pages. As this is a non-free logo, the only place it's allowed to be used is on the main Thunder of the East Marching Band page. I don't want the Image Police coming down on you, lol!!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi EJ, I searched for a logo that would represent a more equal perspective that is inclusive of men and women, and was unable to locate one. Shame on UB. It is just one of many things there have been become more sexist. No reflection on you. Thanks for protecting me from the 'image policing.' Daniellagreen (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.

Thanks

Hi OccultZone, Thanks for reviewing Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and rating it B class! I appreciate your efforts! Daniellagreen (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of my additions to Standardbred

To: Montanabw: Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, why not add to it. If you have a concern that this notable man, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including notable breeders. I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing. Typically, then male editors remove information that the women editors have added. This is another of those situations. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert of my additions

Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, Standardbred, my information could have been added to. The section that I added about notable breeders that included Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. is relevant to this article. If there was a concern that this section or information should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then such a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including the section I added about notable breeders. Then, that section can be added to, as well. Then, an appearance of "undue weight" would not be reflected. This is an issue that could be presented here on the talk page prior to just deleting the information. How is one supposed to build up an article if her/his attempts are deleted? I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing when one's work is simply deleted without any attempts at adding to or improving it. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Source

http://standardbredpleasurehorse.org/horses.html is not a very reliable source. Per WP:RS, it mostly copies from other, better sources. I went to the International Museum of theHorse (which is a more reliable source, as would be sources like the US Trotting Assn) to verify some of your edits at the Standardbred article and tagged the rest. I just put in well over a hour's worth of work fixing all your mistakes, and for someone who's been around Wikipedia for awhile, I thought you would know that you can either use the citation templates the appear when you click "cite" in the edit window or else use reflinks (here) to formate bare URLs.Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, I can see that you've been around Wiki for awhile. I see that you've been making more deletions to the Standardbred article than additions for the past 7 years now. So, if you want to make reverts to other editors' additions, it should be expected to accept the fallout that comes from it. As for my "mistakes," you have not included dates of publication for your cites, only retrieval dates, so I consider that a mistake. Regarding the manner in which I cite, you have been the first editor to take issue with it. In fact, I was instructed to cite in that manner by a veteran editor who helps in the Tea Room. And, the manner in which I cite generally provides more information than the more formal structure, so that is my preference, and one which I am entitled to use. Getting back to the real issues, the article could have been improved without your deletion of my material. It never sets a good tone when editors just delete without trying to improve. It looks to me like that has been happening for awhile with this article, and something needed to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to additional comments on Talk Page of Standardbred Typically, its the men who make an excessive number of reverts, so I'm surprised that you are a woman. As a more senior editor, I would have expected better from you in trying to de-escalate this matter. I also see you've already archived my initial comments from your talk page. Also, this man is no relation to me and is not connected to me in any way, so I take offense with your passing judgment on me about that. That is uncalled for. My point is that my contributions are definitely something that could have been discussed on this talk page before making a sweeping revert of my contributions, without adding to and/or improving it. That was my issue; that has still not been resolved, and I see that it won't be. I'm not surprised. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to IntothatDarkness on Talk Page of Standardbred The issue is that my contributions were reverted without any attempt at improving or adding to them, nor the issue first being discussed on the talk page. If you look at the editor who made the revert, she has made more deletions than additions in her 7 years of editing this article. Why? Why not add to and/or improve what others are attempting to contribute? As for Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., adding a section about notable breeders, I believe, is relevant to the article. And, contrary to your comment, the section was not lengthy, but only two sentences. I didn't even have a chance to add more to it before it was deleted. Very sad, but not surprising. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to post the same thing in three different places. I've answered at Standardbred, suggest you continue there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi Daniellagreen, a note about citation style: if you are adding the first citations to an article you can use whatever style you like. However, if you are working on an article with an established citation style, you should do your best to match it rather than using your own style or trying to change that of the existing references. See WP:CITEVAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. This is the first that anyone has informed me of that. Daniellagreen (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I advise you to pick your style carefully when you begin an article, because if you want to change later, the watchers of CITEVAR (a guideline of good intentions, but with sometimes absurd consequences) may request that you ask permission first. Don't think this is kafkaesque, it happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Standardbred

To Montanabw, :Your misjudgment is, again, uncalled for and I take offense to it. I, also, am not interested in wasting my time with a superior editor as yourself who is not considerate toward other editors. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, While this information is helpful, and appears to be what I should have been initially instructed when I came on Wikipedia, it still fails to address the initial issues of my concern. You appear to provide much information to support your actions of reverting people's contributions on this particular article. On first making my attempted contributions to this article, I reviewed the history and knew what I was already up against in observing the revert history, most of which has been completed by yourself. To me, that makes an appearance of exclusivity in an article. If you had a concern, rather than make a complete delete of my contributions, again, it could have been first discussed here and a template could have been added to that section. An example of an editor doing this can be found in the nuclear waste section of Cattaraugus Creek. As for your statement about my being a "kiddo," I think that 30 years in the writing and editing business, including being a newspaper editor, myself, and teacher of writing for the past 16 years qualifies me as a seasoned writer and editor. My observation was that you were unable to be considerate toward what I attempted to contribute. You can state whatever reasons you like for your sweeping deletions of my contributions, however it remains that you have deleted all of my information and 6 of 7 of my references. This article has been on Wikipedia for the past 11 years, but when I came along, it was still barely out of stub category. There were 4 references attached to this article when I came to it, this article being identified as high in importance, but lacking in sourcing and therefore, in quality. Repeated attempts by many other editors to contribute and/or improve the article have been erased by you; that is how it appears to me. Other editors who may have good things to contribute have been driven away from doing so, as a result. Reviewing the article's history, that is very obvious and cannot be disputed. In your possible pursuit of perfection for this article, then, it appears to me to be quite imperfect, and exclusive to you. While I have learned something about referencing, this has also been the article in which I have now had my worst experience on Wikipedia. For those reasons, I will not be editing it in the future. Regarding this discussion, I will place it where I like. You have evidenced that you can successfully police this article, but not my freedom regarding where to post my comments. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to Standardbred

Your misjudgment is, again, uncalled for and I take offense to it. I, also, am not interested in wasting my time with a superior editor as yourself who is not considerate toward other editors. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, While this information is helpful, and appears to be what I should have been initially instructed when I came on Wikipedia, it still fails to address the initial issues of my concern. You appear to provide much information to support your actions of reverting people's contributions on this particular article. On first making my attempted contributions to this article, I reviewed the history and knew what I was already up against in observing the revert history, most of which has been completed by yourself. To me, that makes an appearance of exclusivity in an article. If you had a concern, rather than make a complete delete of my contributions, again, it could have been first discussed here and a template could have been added to that section. An example of an editor doing this can be found in the nuclear waste section of Cattaraugus Creek. As for your statement about my being a "kiddo," I think that 30 years in the writing and editing business, including being a newspaper editor, myself, and teacher of writing for the past 16 years qualifies me as a seasoned writer and editor. My observation was that you were unable to be considerate toward what I attempted to contribute. You can state whatever reasons you like for your sweeping deletions of my contributions, however it remains that you have deleted all of my information and 6 of 7 of my references. This article has been on Wikipedia for the past 11 years, but when I came along, it was still barely out of stub category. There were 4 references attached to this article when I came to it, this article being identified as high in importance, but lacking in sourcing and therefore, in quality. Repeated attempts by many other editors to contribute and/or improve the article have been erased by you; that is how it appears to me. Other editors who may have good things to contribute have been driven away from doing so, as a result. Reviewing the article's history, that is very obvious and cannot be disputed. In your possible pursuit of perfection for this article, then, it appears to me to be quite imperfect, and exclusive to you. While I have learned something about referencing, this has also been the article in which I have now had my worst experience on Wikipedia. For those reasons, I will not be editing it in the future. Regarding this discussion, I will place it where I like. You have evidenced that you can successfully police this article, but not my freedom regarding where to post my comments. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Daniellagreen. The revert history of an article can point to multiple issues and should not be used as a means to discredit another editor.Only if you were to investigate every revert and look at its context would one even begin to get a picture for why those reverts were made. And even then much of what you'd come up with would be conjecture. If you come onto an article where the ref style has been established best practice is to stay with that style. If you come onto an article that has been worked on by some one who is an expert in that area, and Montana is in the equine area, the practice that will cause the least contention is to look closely at what that editor has to say.

Although it can be difficult don't be attached to content you want to add. Its up to you to show that content is compliant and if its not, you can expect to have it removed. f you really have an interest in the article rather than an attachment to an edit, and believe me we all had those attachments, look for better content. Try not to assume anything about another editor. Focus on the edit and discussion on that edit. If you deal with an edit by going after the editor very little will be accomplished. This isn't meant to be preachy. We all experienced what you have and what Montana has on this issue. Its how we all learn to deal with disagreement and contention that makes this tolerable. Just try not to be attached to your edits. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC))

Daniellagreen. Your references were not from reliable sources, they were mostly from a commercial for-profit site that mostly copied material without full attribution from yet other, better sources. Your attempt to put in stuff about some minor figure was WP:UNDUE and in general, you clearly have an awful lot of easily bruised ego and you whine a lot. Has no one ever told you "no" before? This is an encyclopedia, it is not a newspaper, it is not a promotional advertising medium, it is not a storytelling venue for family histories, and it requires a certain style and format that can be learned by observing others and having a willingness to learn - and being willing to be edited. The Standardbred article is, I agree, not very good as it sits, but frankly, as I have stated before, all I really was asking was for you to not make more work for others by adding yet more things that would later have to be cleaned up, redone and otherwise fixed.

I also can ask that you stop posting on MY talk page. I can't tell you where to post elsewhere, do what you want, but I WILL report you for harassment if you post on my talk page again about the Standardbred article; post at that article's talk page if you want, or here, but I'm tired of dealing with you on my talk page. I am also moving the other user's reply to you here as well because you seem to have trouble listening. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The treatment I've experienced (re: Standardbred)

This is for the record that Montanabw has threatened to report me for "harassment" regarding my commentary to her on this article. It is unfortunate that when people don't get their way and/or are unable to cope with what they don't want to hear that they find it necessary to use intimidation, get ugly, and make threats. This is definitely a poor reflection on Wikipedia and what it should be all about. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you still feel that it may be a gender-gap issue, as you previously implied? I am interested in the gendergap problem and the interaction between its reality and perception, so your insights would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge, In those experiences that I have that were problematic regarding reverts that I perceived were excessive and/or unnecessary, they were made by men. Perhaps that is a reflection that most editors on Wikipedia are male? However, no, after this experience, I see that there is no longer a distinction since I've now experienced the same thing with a female editor. This experience with Montanabw is the worst that I've had on Wikipedia. Although I've already stated that I will no longer edit this article, things have continued and gotten worse. I was just about to go to 'dispute resolution' when I got your message. This has deteriorated to a point that is unnecessarily ugly and upsetting. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge:, I have no idea how to get through to this editor that posting the same attacks against me in three different places, including my talk page, is frowned upon at wikipedia. She made poor edits, I fixed them, explained why and for my troubles, well, you watchlist my page, you've followed the drama. This user is "upset and offended" - well frankly, so am I; this user needs to stop attacking people who disagree with her and stop making false accusations.Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This is to inform that I have filed with dispute resolution regarding this matter in regard to User:Montanabw. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a huge waste of time to me. I looked at your edits and they were definitely problematic. Montanabw was correct to revert you. Now, I understand that made you upset, and believe me, I've been there so I know how you feel. But the way to proceed now is to calmly discuss your proposed edits on the talk page per WP:BRD. You may actually learn something, as we all do in a discussion with someone who has a different POV. Looking at the article in question, it definitely needs a lot of work. Perhaps this is an opportunity for you and Montanabw to work together and improve it. Don't invest so much time and energy into the dispute, put it into improving the article. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, old friend. I have noticed in the past that you can be a bit "sensitive" about editing disagreements. Viriditas is giving you really good advice here. I have not delved into the details, and there is no need for anyone to take sides here. What you were told above is the best advice; the second best choice would be to walk away from this particular article and find another to work on. If the subject is important to you, then open your mind and take a deep breath and work it out, recognizing that the method Wikipedia uses to get to the "best truth" on any subject is reasoned and rational disagreement leading to a consensus. If its not, well I got a whole big long list of school articles that need work I would be happy to send you. Keep editing, Daniella...but keep smiling too. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussions, and I am amazed at the abuse that you have heaped on Montanabw, who is probably our best editor on equestrian topics. Reverting improper and inappropriate edits is one of the things that experienced editors must do. I encourage you to rethink your approach here, in a major, fundamental way. And please work to remove that chip from your shoulder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on here, but I'd like to emphasize one point that the others have not made. I came into this by seeing your attempt to make a request at DRN by posting on the DRN talk page and seeing Keithbob's response to you there. I then read the discussions at ANI, at the Standardbred talk page, and at various user talk pages. You have about 4,200 edits here, mostly in article space. That's commendable, and let me thank you for making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia! That gets me to what I really want to say: Like a lot of folks who jump in and start editing content, you've not had much exposure to the mechanical underbelly of the encyclopedia: the maze of policies, guidelines, essays, noticeboards, and other mechanics by which it operates. The perhaps sad, though I'm guilty of this myself, reality is that when experienced, busy editors have to correct errors which result from someone's lack of knowledge of these mechanics they can often be overly straightforward and so brief to the point that it comes across as being curt. Most of them are just trying to say something rather than just fixing the problem or reverting with no explanation at all, while at the same time not saying any more than is absolutely necessary to explain what they've done. Why so terse? Because we've had to say it so <insert expletive of choice> many times that (a) we weary of giving the long, gentle version, (b) because there's always a good chance with a long, friendly explanation (such as, ahem, this one) that all get in return is a written or silent "too long; didn't read," which makes it a total waste of time, and (c) there's also a very good chance that the editor to whom you're giving it is a vandal, troll, COI/POV pusher, drive-by editor, or CIR–deficient who can't, won't, or doesn't give a flying f. In short, as an busy, experienced editor, you don't get much return for your effort in giving the long, kind explanation. That finally gets me to my point: With your number of edits and experience here, you will find this a much easier place to work if you spend more time learning the ropes and learning the mechanics. Your posting at DRN is an example: You apparently did not take the time to read the instructions on the main DRN page or you would not have posted your request on the talk page. I'm not complaining or criticizing you about that, but merely using it as an example. Your reaction to the other editor at the article talk page (who did go beyond mere succinctness to express a bit of pique) makes me fairly certain that you've not read the verifiability policy or not read it carefully enough to fully grasp it. Because of your lack of knowledge you expected Wikipedia to work in a way that it does not work, as others besides that editor have now told you, and you became upset because you assumed that the standards here were other that what they were and then presumed that your opponent was merely arguing and pursuing her own agenda when the standards she first threw out were correct. What resulted was unfortunate but it could have been avoided by you knowing the standards better and with your number of edits, it's time for you to dive into them or this is going to happen again and again. You're a good editor, but it's time to become a better one. Again, thank you for your good work here and I look forward to seeing more of it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet another great piece of advise. Daniella, I cannot emphasise enough what I said above. The need to disagree, but reasonably, is part and parcel of what makes Wikipedia work. Please remember this. Also remember when someone is in an edit dispute with you, they are not talking about you (even if they are! Some people cannot seperate the words written from the person writing them.). What is being discussed is the facts and the importence or verasity of them. You need to remember that in your own conduct, and you need to learn to ignore it when others don't (save a brief reminder to them to keep on point). As TransporterMan mentioned above, everyone here is of different experience levels and has different goals. The best goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and you have done a really good job of that. Apparently you are in a place where things are difficult for you. Just remember that the goal is not to have your edit in, it is to have the best version possible. Passion is usually a good thing, but perhaps you could work to redirecting your passion toward creating the best online encyclopedia we can have and away from defending what you believe to be the truth. Open minds get far. Closed ones don't. As always, I am available to talk to if you need to. You have my email if you don't want it public. Good luck with this. John from Idegon (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments; I have read everything. I expected everyone to pretty much support the other editor, and believe that to be my overall observation. I presented a couple of different viewpoints to User:Montanabw after she reverted my contributions, and whether she was right or not, she made no attempt to compromise. When I have presented this issue to other editors who, from my perception, have made excessive and/or unnecessary deletes, many of them have been at least somewhat compromising. Take, for example, my edits to the article, Mario Cuomo. Some time ago, a new editor included information in the article about one of his daughters who is a physician. Another editor simply deleted the information, stating that it was not sourced. Okay, so why not seek and add sources to it rather than deleting it? That's what I did - I sought and added sources to it, reverting the revert. How about the section on nuclear waste in the article, Cattaraugus Creek, in which an editor considerately included templates. These are both things that could have been done to my contributions on Standardbred, rather than deleting almost all of the content that I added. I approached the article already expecting a situation with User:Montanabw due to the appearance on the article's history of more of her deletes than contributions to the article, including reverts of the contributions of many other editors in addition to myself. To me, this presents an appearance of exclusivity. For all of that, I will never again edit that article. I approach Wikipedia with the goals of contributing content and improving it. Certainly, User:Montanabw's accomplishments on Wikipedia are quite outstanding, however an attitude of being unable to understand and/or compromise is one that is bullyish and offensive. As far as where I posted about this situation on the dispute resolution notice board, I had already spent a few hours on this issue, and rather than take any more time away from my family duties and obligations, I did the best that I could regarding where to post it. Will I get blamed for that too? There is a first time for everything, and this was my first time in posting a case for dispute resolution. Unfortunately, the negative experiences that I've had on Wikipedia seem to be institutionally supported and never resolved. Could this type of atmosphere prevent more women from editing and contributing to Wikipedia? Yes, I believe so. User:John from Idegon, your comments and suggestions are always the most useful to me, and I appreciate that. I do, however, believe that I am being open-minded, and I also believe that I have tried to think outside of the box here regarding the deletes on Standardbred. I am aware that my manner of thinking is typically different from the mainstream, and I often get slammed for that. What is most unfortunate to me, therefore, is not the experience of the deletes, but the lack of consideration and refusal to understand and/or compromise by an experienced, senior editor whose harshness and hostility far outweighed any of what I shared with her. She didn't like what I had to say, and even suggested that I had some mental deficiency. Wikipedia, unfortunately, often appears to support this type of cyber bullying. As for getting no thanks, I got no thanks either. Many editors have been driven away from Standardbred, an article that could use contributions, referencing, and improvements; I have also been one of them. This situation has left me, as a woman, feeling victimized; it was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided with a little compromise and understanding. That, as I have so often found, is something that is severely lacking in this organization and does not change. Perhaps if people were more willing to be cooperative, understanding, and compromising, these situations would not occur at all. Daniellagreen (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

By its nature, Wikipedia is very political. And I would say it is working most of the time better than another political, consensus based system located in Washington DC that we are all too familiar with. As I told you, I have not educated myself on the background of this particular problem. For one, I can't stand horses. And because of that, I have very little knowledge of them, or the literature associated with them. What I said is based in theroy and from observation of some other issues in your Wikipedia career. Is this an inperfect system? You bet! Is there a better one? Probably not. You cannot legislate manners. That is why I have advised you, and I practice, only fighting the fights that really matter to you. Your editing is very diverse. Perhaps you may wish to find a niche and concentrate on it. Still, you are a very good writer. Whereever you decide to contribute, it will be appreciated. But there will be times when people disagree with you, and there will times when others are "more right" than you. Even if you are absolutely convinced that your position is the valid one, if others are disagreeing with you, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it will not be the one that is included. That is the way of the Wikipedia world. You must realize that there are many people (me included) that have not got either the time or the resources available to search out a reference for a particular edit. If that edit happenes to be about a person (see your discussion of Mario Cuomo's daughter above), WP:BLP demands that it be removed until it can be referenced. In short, please don't take things personal. And I repeat my offer of earlier...if you get frustrated and want to vent, holla at me.  :) I personally am getting pretty irritated at a particular editor that insists his "micronation" (which to me means "imaginary place") deserves an article. It happens. Peace and love be with you Daniella...you know that is His way. John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Daniella, you say, "Another editor simply deleted the information, stating that it was not sourced. Okay, so why not seek and add sources to it rather than deleting it?" What you do not know, I fear, is that there have in the past been months of time and acres of text consumed over at the verifiability policy talk page arguing again and again over whether or not there should be a requirement that editors do just that. But the outcome of those discussions, thus reflecting the consensus of the community, has consistently been that while it is recognized that the best practice is to find and add sources (with some exceptions, such as unsourced contentious information about living persons) that there should not be a requirement that an editor do so and that it is acceptable to merely remove unsourced material. Thus to get into a disagreement with another editor over that point is unproductive: they have the "right" to do it, especially if they're only occasionally removing relatively small amounts of text. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I'm glad to read your response, because that was just one example of what I am talking about. In regard to the info that I added to Standardbred, it was all sourced. One reason that User:Montanabw gave for removing about 1/2 of it was that the person in question was not a creator of the breed. So, I invested the time to locate and add relevant information about the breed's history (all of which was deleted by her) and to source it. In that information, I also happened to include a reference to Henry Astor, one of the original developers/owners of the breed. As you can see, that information was also deleted by User:Montanabw. Such an action shows insensitivity to me, not "boldness." So, her "bold" deletes, to me, represent actions that are excessive, unnecessary, and harsh, particularly when all information I added still could have been maintained and/or improved upon. But, then again, it's just easier for some "bold" editors to simply delete, rather than consider, include, and/or integrate the work and efforts of others. To me, that's what separates Wikipedia from a professional writing organization of a similar level. "Bold" can have many different definitions in Wikipedia, including contributory, inclusive, and integrative, or harsh, insensitive, and excessively destructive. That's really where the biggest difference lies. Professionals such as myself who come to Wikipedia find that anyone can basically do or say anything (whether about an article or about each other), and it is tolerated and accepted, in addition to there being different definitions for "editor," as well. Editing should mean the polishing or refining of another's work, however on Wikipedia, it has many different meanings, such as creative and additive, or harsh and destructive. For women who are able to be tolerant of that, they will likely be more successful on Wikipedia. As an experienced editor once informed me very early on, these types of situations are those that one has to go through as part of being on Wikipedia. Why? Wikipedia should be an organization that works toward collaboration, rather than maintaining policies that serve to enable bullying and destructiveness instead of understanding and integration. Again, the real issue to me is that some compromise and understanding could have been achieved, and was not. Every one of my perspectives was not accepted, nor integrated by User:Montanabw. Again, I am about contributing, including, and integrating, not destroying. Just because a person is viewed as "probably our best editor on equestrian topics," doesn't mean that everyone even views her as one who is an understanding or cooperative editor. In my interactions with her, the lack of these qualities enables her bullyish behavior, and therefore makes her the worst editor on Wikipedia with whom I have communicated. In my experience, having worked with people of all ages and levels of experience, including on a professional level, being a "best editor" means also being open to considering, including, and integrating the work of others. Anyone can come up with all kinds of reasons for deleting information, but how about working toward creating a more user-friendly environment on Wikipedia for everyone? It appears that the consensus regarding the issue about which you described above simply continues a vicious cycle that could be improved, and by not doing so, diminishes Wikipedia as well as those who attempt contributions to it. Just repeatedly reading comments that my concerns are a "waste of time" signify to me that the serious consideration and integration of an innovative perspective will not be achieved. Should I continue on Wikipedia, that will be difficult to stomach, because that's not how I approach things. And, this is all exactly another reason why I prefer to be more an independent editor here, rather than being part of some group or project, because the views of the majority are not necessarily those that are best for successful growth, development, inclusion, and integration in the organization. By Wikipedia continuing to take a hard line, it will also continue to exclude and/or drive away those who are trying to make a genuine effort toward contributing and/or improving it. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Take this as an example of what I'm talking about...Say, for example, you have a house to which you have made an addition. The addition is an improvement to the home, and while it may not be perfect, it contributes to increasing the value of the residence. A tornado comes through and completely destroys the addition to your house. All of that time, money, effort, and investment that you made into the addition is gone. Then, consider that when you seek support to compensate for the damage and attempt to rebuild the addition in an even better capacity, whether it is through insurance or other financial assurances, including your own savings, another tornado comes through and almost completely eradicates your addition, leaving only perhaps a doorknob intact. This time, when you seek compensation (in this case, support) from insurance or financial lenders, for the most part, you don't get it. Some people may certainly understand your plight, but no one comes through with any tangible assistance for rebuilding the addition this second time. When you take your case to a higher regulatory authority, it kicks the situation back onto you, providing no resolution and mostly still supporting the tornado and the weather. One or two folks might support your desire to try again to rebuild, and express their consideration for your situation, which is appreciated. Others, for the most part, give you all kind of reasons why your addition to the home was a bad idea in the first place, and instead, being supportive of the tornado and the weather that created it. One person undervalues you further by stating that the tornado is wonderful. This is a good analogy to how people who contribute to Wikipedia feel when their contributions are completely or almost entirely deleted. Another editor's deletion (the tornado) is supported by policy (the weather), thus causing the contributory editor (the addition) to feel that their idea, effort, and investment was unvalued and unimportant, thus, also causing them to be even less likely to contribute in the future (no longer having any desire to rebuild the addition), especially when the tornado is mostly supported by other editors (the insurance). This is where I'm coming from. It makes writing in Wikipedia a cut-throat business, but it doesn't have to be that way. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You know, I've tried to bite my tongue here and not respond to this, but getting called "the worst" is really over the top. TransporterMan perfectly explained the frustration of long term editors. In this case, I have said, over and over, assorted reasons for my changes, but instead of discussing the issue, I first -before any discussion - get a nasty message from Daniellagreen on my talkpage accusing me, basically, of being a sexist man (When I happen to be neither). Does she listen to anything? No, she wants me to do some vague "compromise". This reminds me of the following tale:

• Q: Can I burn down your house?
• A; No
• Q: How about if I just set the garage on fire?
• A: No
• Q: Well, can I drag your furniture into the backyard and use it to start a bonfire there?
• A: No
• Q: Waaaaah! You're not COMPROMISING!

And that, as far as I am concerned, is what is going on here. The rest of you deserve gold medals for putting up with this user. Maybe with your continued patience, she will stop attacking me and other messengers and learn how to actually edit. Good luck. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(slow-motion edit conflict) Daniella, you say, "Wikipedia should be an organization that works toward collaboration, rather than maintaining policies that serve to enable bullying and destructiveness instead of understanding and integration." First, let me note that thinking of WP as an "organization" suggests a top-down or hierarchical structure which does not exist here, at least not in most cases. We are, at least in theory and most of the time in practice, all equals. And there is no doubt about it, Wikipedia is built upon an ideal of collegial collaboration. In a wholly-perfect wiki environment we would need no policies or rules at all. Everyone would always act and devote their entire effort and energy to improving the encyclopedia; when disagreements arise they would work them out with complete respect for one another and for one another's feelings and intellectual integrity. The problem is this: that ideal is put into practice by a bunch of people who are both all equal and all human and, worse, human beings who have little or nothing at stake when they act here. I have no opinions about what you've experienced at this article because I've not looked closely at either your edits or Montanabw's responses, I'm only reacting to what I've seen on the talk pages and what you've said. But from what I've seen there, I rather suspect that you've had a conflict which pales in comparison with those at articles where the subject matter involves editors who absolutely hate one another and who keep their conflicts of interest or ingrained and wholly inflexible points of view suppressed just enough that they don't get booted out of here: gun control, Mohammed images, Jerusalem, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, just about anything in Sri Lanka, even fanboy fights over video game and comic books. Most of the conflicts at those places can be worked out through some fairly basic principles, but because of the continuing conflicts there the same conflicts have to be worked out over and over again. Without policies and guidelines those same resolutions have to be reinvented every time one of those conflicts arise. Due to human nature and the other factors I mentioned above, Wikipedia would either be a chaotic free-for-all or totally and continually gridlocked except for the existence of our policies. The policies were not, moreover, created from on high when Wikipedia was created. This April 5, 2001, list was one of the earliest lists of policies on WP (which went live on January 15, 2001). Compare it to just the key policies currently listed in this template: {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. They grew as the community needed to deal again and again with the foibles of human nature. As the CONLIMITED section of the CONSENSUS policy says, policies and guidelines are the "established consensus" of the community. They've not been decided by some legislature or committee, but by the community and they can be changed by the community as well. To return to specifics, how do we decide what can go into an article and what cannot? Well, the original standard was that good, important stuff should go in and poor, unimportant stuff should not. After a million or so fights over that, and since we don't want to empower an editorial board to make those decisions (as to do so would fly in the face of the wiki nature of Wikipedia) we had to come up with a standard. That was verifiability: all facts asserted in the article had to originate in a reliable source. The fight then evolved into this: "That assertion that you put in is in a reliable source." "Yes it is, I saw it there." "Which one?" "Doesn't make any difference, it just was." That then led to the addition of the BURDEN section of that policy which says that it's the obligation of the person adding the material to include the source that they're relying on. Next argument: "You didn't include a reliable source." "Yeah, so what, sue me, you go find the source." Thus to enforce the requirement of BURDEN, a policy was added saying that it was okay for the other editor to remove the material. Why not say, instead, that the adding editor will be blocked but that the responding editor should go try to find a source before taking it out? Other than the obvious reason that to do so would make BURDEN meaningless, it's because the reliability to the public of Wikipedia depends on the public being able to prove that what we say here has come from a reliable source. Without that, anyone can add whatever made-up stuff they want to Wikipedia and they have the right to insist that it remain there unless the removing editor swears on her mother's grave that they've made an exhaustive search, including trips behind paywalls and to public and private libraries looking for obscure books, and cannot find a source for it. Please understand that I'm not saying that the lack or presence of sources is the only thing at stake in your conflict with the other editor. I'm only using it to respond to your point about putting the burden on the removing editor and to point out why I say that you would be well served to learn Wikipedia's underpinnings better. Moreover, please also understand that I'm not writing this with the purpose of frustrating you or driving you off. Very much to the contrary, I hope that you'll stay and I would not have spent the time I have here on this page if I just wanted you to leave. But I'm also very much afraid that your frustration level will continue to grow and that you will leave if you continue to fail to understand what Wikipedia really is and how it really works at this point in time. And that you can have a hand in trying to change the things that you don't like. That doesn't mean that you can successfully change them, but they're always open to being changed. It may be that you just don't want the bother. Wikipedia is indisputably a tough place and what it is today has indisputably been fueled and shaped by testosterone and the boys' club it has been until now, but it will stay that way unless more women take the challenge of beating us guys at our own game and stick around. I truly hope that you will. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

To Montanabw, You have in no uncertain terms directed me not to communicate with you and have threatened me if I continue to do so, yet you persist in communicating with me. You have also implied and suggested that I have some mental defect, which is highly inappropriate. This is to request a cease and desist from you. It is clear that you dislike my POV, so why come over to my page and read it, and then continue the issue? It is clear that we disagree. I agree to disagree. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To Transporterman, Yes, I really do understand where you're coming from. If an editor's contribution is not considered good enough, basically, it can be deleted. I get it. No one can force anyone to go the extra mile and improve. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hi, Daniella. It's uncanny how your complaining and whining and vexatious litigation and repetitiousness and self-quoting and forum shopping and assumptions of bad faith remind me of another editor, now indefinitely blocked for the extremes she took those things to. It would be inappropriate to name that other user here (I'll share it by e-mail if anybody's interested), so why am I mentioning it? Am I suggesting you and she are the same person? No, not at all. The other editor didn't give a fig for horses afaik, and you have never shown any interest in the other person's special passion. No, I've brought it up for two other reasons: to point out that these are the only two similar cases I'm aware of, after all these years I've spent on Wikipedia; the specific kind of persistence, or way of going round and round and going longer and longer with it, is fortunately unusual here, almost unique. (Even though, as Transporterman points out above, there are many worse conflicts, at many far more controversial and battle-torn articles and topics.) And secondly, I bring it up to point out that someone was blocked for the same thing, which means you can be, too. Whether or not your conduct and mannerisms violate the letter of any particular policy, they're so bad for the atmosphere, so oxygen-absorbing, so counterproductive, so at odds with the purpose of this place, which is to create an encyclopedia, enfin so disruptive, that they're blockable. Please take a break from the subject of the wrongs and injustices you perceive as being perpetrated against you, and from the people you perceive as enemies. You'll end up blocked if you persist with this. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

POV

I am not broken, so don't try to fix me. I am expressing my perspective, and am free to do that. By making a filing in regard to this in dispute resolution, I am aware that one cannot be blocked for being civil and expressing a POV, or is that a façade as well? I am aware that the majority does not "agree" with my perceptions, but not recognizing and addressing them is also counterproductive. This is not the first time I have experienced this unnecessary issue, though it should be the last. Should I be blocked, then you have lost all respect of yet another intelligent and innovative leader. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)